D60 > D90 ...Matrix metering?

thedude

Hi Everyone, I'd really appreciate your opinions and insights on something.

But first of all let me set the scene...

2005: bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D70. I chose it because I handled several alternatives in the shops and this one just felt right. Two years later I switched to Canon. So what happened? I started to rationalize, I was actually happy with the pictures I was getting but the kit lens (17-80mm) wasn't quite what I had hoped for. I wanted a faster, sharper lens...and one I could afford. Nikon didn't have one...the 2.8/17-55mm was out of reach. Before I knew it I made a bad decision.

2007: bought a Canon 40D with the Canon 2.8/17-55mm in a very affordable package. Great lens, as good as everyone had promised it would be (as close as you can get to prime quality). I was getting really good results (at least good enough to keep me happy). 14bit raw, a bigger viewfinder, more custom-setting options...all pretty nice to have. Added the Canon 70-300mm and immediatly became a fan of what can be achieved with a tele-lens. One year later I switched back to Nikon. So what happened? I had figured out how to properly use the Canon but I just couldn't get along with the ergonomics. Most buttons, switches and settings felt out of place and even 10 months and thousands of shots later I stil hadn't gotten used to it. So I finally gave up and came back home.

2008: Starting out again with a Nikon D60 and 2 kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200 VR DX). It was just what I could afford at the time. The D300 was out of reach and the D90 had just been launched and was still overpriced. After my first outing I knew I had made the right decision. Some of the controls were back where I expected them to be, the feel of the camera and the sound of the shutter were all just right. The pictures seem super-sharp (especially at f5.6-8) so I didn't even think back anymore to the good old 2.8/17-55. So far so good. Then I experienced what Nikon had done to the matrix metering. Overexposures galore. I adjusted my habits and now use spot metering almost all the time and it works but it's a PITA (remember that the D60 doesn't have bracketing). Once in a while, especially when time is of the essence, I would love to be able to rely on matrix metering in pretty normal lighting conditions. Perhaps I'm being nostalgic but I feel that th D70 was miles ahead of the D60. Last but not least the D60 is a small, light-weight camera...so now I'm looking to get back to something more substantial with a few more direct controls and less menu-digging.

I tried handling the D90 in a shop and immediately got that "it feels right" feeling. It's what initially brought me to the D70 and it's very reassuring to know that Nikon still offers this "just right" solution between the lighter entry-level and heavy high-end options. But I'm very wary...what will the D90 metering be like? As much as I've browsed the Web I've heard too many conradicting stories. Some say it's very much the same (i.e.: matrix metering being very much tied to the active focus point).

So here's my question: If any of you have experienced switching from the D40/D40x/D60 to a D90: has its metering been a positive experience? Or is it just as "high maintenance" as the D60's?

(I guess I'm just hoping in vain that someone will reassure me that the D90 is closer to the conservative matrix metering of the D70...oh well)

Thanks and best regards,
TheDude

Qarik

I went from d40x to the d90 (as it came out). I don't have any issues with the matrix metering overexposing. I have maybe 10K clicks on the camera.

ziggy53

Thedude, welcome to the Digital Grin.

While the Nikon D90 is a fairly decent upgrade over the D60, I believe both metering systems are similar. (420 segment, RGB, 3D Matrix metering II)

However, I believe that the D90 has a more advanced image acquisition and processing section with Active D-Lighting and 14 bit capture. If you pay attention to the histogram and "Blinkies", and if you adjust the exposure accordingly, I suspect you would be very satisfied.

thedude

Thanks Ziggy53 and Qarik,

That's indeed what I'm doing most of the time now: I take a shot, check the histogram and "blinkies", adjust my exposure (or spot-meter a neutral-grey area of the scene) and shoot again. This works almost every time to get the right balance between shadows and highlights. But it's a lot of work. (and yes, that's part of the fun of DSLR photography, but man there are times...)

Active d-lighting actually seems to work (I've tried it on the D60) but that only helps when shooting JPEGs. I shoot RAW most of the time and post-process (in Aperture). The D60's RAW files are actually very pliable and it's possible to recover a lot (as long as I make sure to always keep the exposure at -0,7 or -1 to start with).

In terms of spec it indeed seems that the metering is very much the same in both cameras. IMHO that's a shame but it's something I can manage. I guess it would have been nice though if they had implemented the D300's metering

But does the D90 capture in 14bit? I though that was reserved for the D300 and they had kept the D90 at 12bit?

P.S. Something I forgot to mention. I hardly ever have issues with exposure indoors. But I mainly shoot landscapes. Portraits occasionally. I never shoot sports/studio/wedding/macro's.

Thanks again.

ziggy53

thedude wrote:

...

But does the D90 capture in 14bit? I though that was reserved for the D300 and they had kept the D90 at 12bit?

P.S. Something I forgot to mention. I hardly ever have issues with exposure indoors. But I mainly shoot landscapes. Portraits occasionally. I never shoot sports/studio/wedding/macro's.

Thanks again.

I believe you are correct in that the D90 only records 12 bit RAW. Kind of a shame because there are some who believe that it "could" record 14 bit and may indeed image at 14 bit.

If you are having problems with dynamic range (DR), that could be because the DR of the scene is beyond the capability of the camera to capture in a single exposure. You might try HDR (high dynamic range) techniques and/or multiple exposures, at multiple settings, and then manually masking and replacing those regions that need attention. Either would require the use of a tripod.

Alternately, the FujiFilm dSLR cameras can record a staggering amount of dynamic range and they use Nikon lenses. The new Nikon D3x is also capable of wider dynamic range at base sensitivity than most other cameras, but it's kinda pricey.

Qarik

over in dpreview..the d90:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page36.asp

As one of the "cons" it mentions overenthusastic metering leading to blown highlights

thedude

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe you are correct in that the D90 only records 12 bit RAW. Kind of a shame because there are some who believe that it "could" record 14 bit and may indeed image at 14 bit.

If you are having problems with dynamic range (DR), that could be because the DR of the scene is beyond the capability of the camera to capture in a single exposure. You might try HDR (high dynamic range) techniques and/or multiple exposures, at multiple settings, and then manually masking and replacing those regions that need attention. Either would require the use of a tripod.

Alternately, the FujiFilm dSLR cameras can record a staggering amount of dynamic range and they use Nikon lenses. The new Nikon D3x is also capable of wider dynamic range at base sensitivity than most other cameras, but it's kinda pricey.

Yep, unfortunately the D3x's price is beyond reasonable (unless you're a full-time pro)

...and I would have considered the Fuji S5 Pro if it weren't for the limits of its native resolution and high ISO performance. But the examples of out of cam JPEGs with wide dynamic range were indeed staggering. (I wonder if Fuji wil bring out the successor sometime soon? Has anyone heard of a S6 Pro being in the pipeline?)

Getting a D90 and using bracketing to try out HDR has crossed my mind, but I hope that it's also possible to achieve some subtle results (to avoid that typical over-processed HDR-look).

By the way, something that helps a lot as well is the use of ND Grad filters - something I've started doing recently. It yields some very nice results but can only be applied in specific situations.

thedude

Qarik wrote:

over in dpreview..the d90:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page36.asp

As one of the "cons" it mentions overenthusastic metering leading to blown highlights

Exactly....that's the quote that started me thinking long and hard about this. But I could also get my hands on a new D200 for almost the same price as a D90. I had dismissed that idea as crazy because the D90 is superior in so many (important) ways - not least of which is the cleaner high ISO's.

But I noticed from your signature that you have both. Is there a particular reason you chose to keep the D200? Is it a backup to your D90 or the other way round? Would you say that the D90 is giving you higher quality (for lack of a better word) results?

Qarik

thedude wrote:

Exactly....that's the quote that started me thinking long and hard about this. But I could also get my hands on a new D200 for almost the same price as a D90. I had dismissed that idea as crazy because the D90 is superior in so many (important) ways - not least of which is the cleaner high ISO's.

But I noticed from your signature that you have both. Is there a particular reason you chose to keep the D200? Is it a backup to your D90 or the other way round? Would you say that the D90 is giving you higher quality (for lack of a better word) results?

I started with the d90 and got the d200 as a backup body because it was on sale at best buy for $599.

go here for my d90 vs d200 comp
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=131554

rookieshooter

For what it's worth, Ken Rockwell stated, "The meter seems identical to the D300 and D3. The defective meter of the D40 and D80, which often overexposed, is gone."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm

As for me I use a D700 and leave it on Matrix all the time, and have had no issues whatsoever. I think it's spot on usually.

Just use some exposure compensation up or down according to the histogram and you should be good to go.

DsrtVW

Can you fine tune the metering on that model.
I know you can do it on the D300
That way you can make it perform the way your shooting style demends. Most of the time I am on spot shooting nature and all that. MAtrix I use for family and events.

thedude

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I've decided that depending on what deals I find here I'll go for either the D90 or D300. Worst-case with the D90 I'll continue to mainly use spot-metering and exposure adjustments (and yes, I also read that "hard-code" exposure adjustments are possible with that model so that's great news. That combined with bracketing should do the trick). Best case I find a D300 I can afford and hopefully all will be well.

It's gonna be a tough choice; the following combinations cost pretty much exactly the same here in Germany:

A D90 with the Nikon 12-24....which will also autofocus on the D60 (as a backup).

or

A D300 with a Tokina 12-24 (old model I)...which can't autofocus on the D60.

Oh man....decisions, decisions. Maybe I should just flip a coin and start shooting.